Simon is right that the women should get less money. In my opinion, it's not about the amount of tennis that they play it's about the quality and the entertainment level. Let's be honest, women tennis brings in much less money then men's tennis. It's simple, let the atp and wta conclude their sponsor contracts and other "income" ways seperate and pay their athletes from what they earn. Now, the women get payed, partly, from the money that they male colleagues earn.

I completely agree. If they want to match the amount of prize money they get then they should go out and earn it for themselves.Although they would still benefit from the heavy lifting the men do at the slams but never mind.It might even at the end of the day result in better tennis from the womens side as it certainly wasn't always this boring.

To me women playing 5 sets with no tiebreaks are an absolute no-no from my point of view. I cannot even begin to count the amount of times I have been waiting on Andy to play, but there is a womans match before his. Player A will be up 6-1 5-2 and then inexplicably Player B ups her level and takes the 2nd set in a tiebreak. Then both players trade breaks for the entireity of the 3rd set and the match drags on for hours. Now this may be exciting but at the same time imagine how long it would take if women were to be moved up to 5 sets. It would screw up the entire schedule.

Furthermore, an interesting point that Simon makes is that men's tennis is more appealing than women's. Let me just say this, Sharapova and Serena Williams (The two biggest draws in women's tennis) are currently on court and I've been flicking between Goffin-Levine and Verdasco-Zemjla. That is only my preference however.

I'm all for equality-which includes being fair to the men. Yes the women work every day to be the best and play as many weeks of the year etc. But they play less match time and there's a big difference between say a 2 hour 'long' women's match and a 4 hour 'long' men's match. As has also been said the WTA and ATP base some of this prize money on the sponsorship they receive and the men's game brings in more sponsorship.

It would be interesting if rough attendance figures could be calculated for men's and women's matches when it is a twin gender event. I recall Serena Williams and Sharapova playing the Final(?) I think in Madrid this year, and I can vaguely recall Jonathan Overend tweeting a picture of something like 200 people watching, in a large thousands seater stadium. That would never happen in a men's final, and I don't think it did. Please note I may have got some facts wrong here but I think I have the gist of it correct!

He has a point, although I disagree with his reasons for it. Ridiculous that Women get paid the same as men in the Slams for three sets whereas the Men have to play five.

It isn't the women that want to do the best out of 3 sets.

There's a larger issue by those that enforce it. Tournaments would need to change drastically as the timing would be thrown completely.

Either way I agree they should be paid the same. The argument based on length of matches doesn't work because mens' slam matches that finish in 3 straight sets therefore are no more of a match than a womens' 3 setter.

If it was about "quality of tennis" then that counts most of the men out too. Gender doesn't guarantee quality.

As for revenue they generate, if they were marketed equally then we could discuss their revenue. But they aren't. We can bash marketing but people don't spend billions on it each year for no reason. Therefore we can't suggest they bring in less revenue if the organisers et al. market them as "less than men" to begin with.

And anyway, in this day and age nobody is going to go hungry or without a roof if women are paid less than men. The precedent has to remain.

In my job everyone, male or female, gets paid for the hours they do. If that rule of thumb was applied to tennis then the women would get less. How about a trial slam where they put the women's and men's matches on separate courts to see how much revenue they create? A percentage could then be divvied out to the players on those courts.

Its simple; ladies, If you want the same pay, then play best of 5 in Slams and no one can argue with you and nor should they. Until then, it's the men who are on the blunt end of positive discrimination.

Totally agree. It should be equal pay for equal play across the board.

To be truthful, and as a woman, I've never understood how the women could have argued for equal pay, not in the majors.

The argument appears to be that they work as hard as the men, they train as much, and they've worked through the years every bit as much as the men. My argument however, is that you are not awarded prize money on the basis of how hard you have worked through the years, or how hard you have trained, you are given your prize money based on how you have performed in whatever tournament it might be, so to my mind the women's argument is somewhat flawed.

In the regular tournaments I have no problem with the women earning the same as the men, because in the regular tournaments through the year they all play best of three sets. In a major the women play best of three whilst the men play best of five. Straight away alarm bells ring for me in the 'equal work' area, because there is no way that can be called equal, not in any sense.

I really do think the time has come when making the women's matches in majors best of five needs to be discussed. I think it would be good for the game if the discussion was at least opened up. However, when it has come up, even during Wimbledon, the argument against it was that the women are weaker than the men. Well, are they weaker, or are they equal? I'm afraid you can't have it both ways.

If it ever came to a point when the women did play best of five I think it would be interesting to see those who could do it and those who couldn't. My worry might be that Serena might be the only one who could, and I have to say I'm not sure I could handle the thought of Sharapova's screaming for a potential five sets.